From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: accounting for memory used for BufFile during hash joins |
Date: | 2019-05-07 13:17:42 |
Message-ID: | 20190507131742.nixczzyyyuuoig7m@development |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 11:18:28PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Do we actually check how many duplicates are there during planning?
>
>Certainly that's part of the planner's cost estimates ... but it's
>only as good as the planner's statistical knowledge.
>
I'm looking at the code, and the only place where I see code dealing with
MCVs (probably the best place for info about duplicate values) is
estimate_hash_bucketsize in final_cost_hashjoin. That's not quite what I
had in mind - I was thinking more about something along the lines "See the
larget group of duplicate values, disable hash join if it can't fit into
work_mem at all."
Of course, if the input estimates are off, that may not work too well. It
would certainly not help the query failing with OOM, because that was a
case of severe underestimate.
Or did you mean some other piece of code that I have missed.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-07 13:34:42 | Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch |
Previous Message | Matsumura, Ryo | 2019-05-07 12:56:57 | RE: SQL statement PREPARE does not work in ECPG |